Talk:United States of America

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is not a political forum; please restrict all discussion here to discussion about how best to improve the United States of America article. Off topic debates, political rants, nonsense poetry, etc. will all be removed as it is added. This is a travel guide and political disputes are utterly irrelevant except insofar as they directly bear upon the experience of a traveller. See Wikivoyage:Be fair#Political disputes for further guidelines.


Archived discussions

Formatting and language conventions

For articles about the United States, please use the 12-hour clock to show times, e.g. 9AM-noon and 6PM-midnight.

Please show prices in this format: $100, and not USD 100, 100 dollars or US$100.

Please use American spelling.

Update Warning Box[edit]

After the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, should we add that to the warning box? CatDog1234539 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we need to. What happened yesterday seems to confirm that the warning box is accurate, but in terms of advice for travelers, I'm not sure anything else needs to be said beyond what's already there. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mx. Granger:Ok. CatDog1234539 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a warning box on Washington, DC. We don't put warnings about local or regional events in a national article. Ground Zero (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to national media here in the US, there is online chatter taking place about more incidents of political extremism potentially in the works in the capitals of all the states on Jan 17 (under the theme of gun rallies) and then in DC on Jan 20 (e.g. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-far-right-is-already-scheming-for-a-post-riot-sequel and https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1253546) Maybe we should say something to the effect of being careful about traveling to these places on these days? Maybe it is fearmongering, but as a US citizen I can say for me it is kind of scary, and I don't think I would want to be a foreign tourist and caught up in the middle of it. Lazarus1255 (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd support such a warning. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I guess someone got it in there. Thanks.Lazarus1255 (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Associated Press[edit]

Shouldn't we mention something about it since it's probably considered the most authoritative and unbiased source of hard news in the U.S.? The dog2 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Considered by whom? I've lived in the U.S. my whole life and have more than a passing familiarity with the workings of the news media, and I can attest that while the AP certainly is authoritative and unbiased, it's not the only American news source that can be described as such, nor is it widely singled out and renowned by the general public as being the most authoritative and unbiased. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's completely unimportant for visitors to the U.S. to know about AP or UPI. Few ordinary Americans are familiar with them, and if any visitor to the U.S. reads a newspaper, they're likely to see stories from those agencies, anyway. I actually think the entire section on the media isn't really necessary, but the New York Times and Washington Post and the TV networks are a hell of a lot more widely known than news agencies. But by the way, since this section is coming up, why is PBS described as "taxpayer-subsidized public broadcasting" instead of "public broadcasting subsidized by contributors"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I don't think it's reasonable to consider the New York Daily News' news coverage particularly biased and not "reasonably balanced". Why are we making that claim? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was always under impression that the news agencies that are regarded as the most authoritative and unbiased in the world are AP (based in the U.S.), Reuters (based in the U.K.) and AFP (based in France). But yeah, I realise that many newspapers just publish news sources from one of these agencies. The dog2 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did anyone say UPI was more biased than AP? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. I didn't mention UPI just because they seem to be rather niche. I don't see as many stories from them in other news sites compared to the "Big Three". The dog2 (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This obviously contentious and clearly not needed in a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's very contentious, just rather trivial for non-journalists. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, I still want to delete the tendentious claim that the New York Daily News is unusually unbalanced in its news coverage, and we should probably address the question of who provides most of the funding for PBS, since we've sought to define "public TV". Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotta disagree about the Daily News. It's safe to say that more than half of us feel their worldview comports more with reality than their main competitor, but for me the question is one of market positioning, and the answer is that they very clearly intend themselves as the liberal mirror image of the Post. Too many cheeky Trump-mocking headlines to claim otherwise. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They may have gotten more liberal in the last few years, but historically, they've been centrist but populist (in the sense of working on behalf of ordinary people) and haven't hesitated to endorse Republicans. Yes, their headlines are cute, but the actual coverage isn't unusually skewed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Respect[edit]

The Respect section was well put of of proportion to the article. There was repetition, and a fair bit of talking down to the readers. We should not treat readers like children who need to be told who to conduct themselves in every situation. Nor should we give the impression that Americans are so volatile and quick to take offence that a foreigner has to avoid talking about anything at all. I have cut it back to a more reasonable size and respectful scope, and moved the points that relate to students to the appropriate article. Ground Zero (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regional variation in American cuisine[edit]

While I agree that details on regional American cuisines belong in the American cuisine article, or the regional articles, I think it will be useful to have a cursory overview on how American cuisine differs from region to region. American cuisine does, after all, differ quite significantly between regions. For instance, the German-influenced simple and hearty meat-heavy cuisine of the Midwest is quite different from the spice heavy, and to some extent French-influenced cuisine of Louisiana. And not to mention the emphasis on seafood in New England and Maryland, which you obviously won't get in the Midwest given that it is inland and away from the sea. And as a travel guide, I think we should let foreigners have an idea of what to expect when travelling around the U.S. and trying the local cuisines. The dog2 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The American cuisine article is prominently linked at the top of the Eat section. We use branch articles to avoid overloading the country article with everything there is to know about the country, and making the article so long as to be unreadable. As the edit history of the talk page shows, many editors over the years have noted concern about the length of this article, and frustration that contributors add so much here while ignoring regional and topic articles. My edits only reduced the article to the size it was on May 19. 2021, less than two weeks ago. Is there any text in this article that you think is less important than want you want to add, i.e., that could be moved to another article or removed altogether? Ground Zero (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd only propose adding a single sentence giving a cursory overview on how American cuisine differs between regions, similar to what it in the China article. I have in fact been adding stuff to some of the regional articles in the past few days, but I can only add content when I travel to those regions. The dog2 (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You added quite a lot more than a single sentence today, in May and in April. Does your lack of a response to my suggestion that you find things less important to remove or move from the article mean that you are not interested in taking that approach, or that what you are proposing to add is less important than what is there now? Ground Zero (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there's a consensus that all edits must be a net negative in length, but since you insist, what do you think is unimportant here? I'm guessing we could probably cut down detail on the types of food, perhaps form the barbecue section. The dog2 (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But there is agreement that this article should not be allowed to grow indefinitely. Take a look at the discussions from 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2020. I've already taken a bunch of stuff out, as noted, but that didn't even undo two weeks of additions. And as you know, I've taken the lead on creating new articles to shift content out of this, and on culling the excess verbiage. It is not my job to cut stuff out so that others can add whatever they feel like. If you think that this article should be allowed to grow without limit, you should make the case for that position. Ground Zero (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article already states, "While many types of food are unchanged throughout the United States, there are a few distinct regional varieties of food". Maybe just change "a few" to "many" if you want to drive home the point that there are noticeable differences and variation among foods and dishes between regions. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indef protection for this article[edit]

Given the large amount of vandalism on this article that has been continually going on for a long period of time, I would suggest an indef protection for this article, similar to the North Korea article. I think the risk vs. benefit is not worth keeping this page open for anons and new users. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, too drastic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I feel it is misleading to say it's the travel guide that anyone can edit while having one of the most important articles be locked to most users Tai123.123 (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, but where was the consensus for the North Korea article's indef protection? Because that's on a similar boat as this article, both which get vandalised too often (NK before indef protection). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no discussion about it on Talk:North Korea. It should be lifted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although I'm not sure whether lifting NK would be a good idea. Given the high media attention it gets, we'd be doing something more productive then reverting vandalism which the risk vs. benefit isn't that great. The same with the Yoga article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, let's see how much vandalism it gets, but I don't agree with indefprotecting articles other than the main page, policy pages and similar pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I definitely don't think lifting the indef protection from the Yoga article would be a good idea though, just given how much spam/touting it gets. But I do think other pages like Cultural attractions, Previous Featured travel topics, Discover and Destinations should be protected because... why would a newbie want to edit it? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably justifiable because they're either umbrella articles for other articles or archives. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we need to be careful regarding overreach of admin powers, particularly with the proposed protection of archive pages that have received no vandalism as far as I am aware. There’s a difference between administration and policing, and I fear we’re getting too close to the latter by protecting pages unharmed by vandalism, where there isn’t a reason why vandalism would occur. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I presume you're talking about Previous FTT and Discover. The question is, why leave it open for anons? As far as we want to keep things open, there is a limit on how much we can keep things open. Both these have zero reasons for a newbie to edit it, given that only temp editors can edit the main page and only AC users can edit Template:Discover, and disruption to both these pages won't give Wikivoyage a good look. Others like Cultural attractions, that may be left open, but again, there's a limit on how much we can leave things open to all. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To clarify indef protect or indef semi-protect? The former is indicated in your proposal and is the overreach to which my previous comment refers. I oppose the latter, semi-protect, but I don’t see it as a major administrative overreach. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, I meant indef semi-protect (to me: protect = semi-protect, fully-protect: admin only protect, temp-protect: temp editors+admins). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think vandalism in archives is any big issue, and IPs might very well spot some glitch. Newbies would hardly know what errors to fix or not fix, but there is no "newbie protect". The only reason to protect proactively is when vandalism could go undetected (for that other tools are better), would be hard to clean up, or make a very big impact if timed right. I think people nowadays understand that wikis get vandalised, so the latter is improbable to be a major thing, but is the reason for protecting the main page. –LPfi (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Southwest Airlines[edit]

Do widespread flight cancelations justify a cautionbox? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitely yes. 1,800 is way too much and is definitely disruptive. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. It happens fairly often that hundreds of flights are canceled because of weather events. If we start adding caution boxes for this kind of thing we will never be able to keep up.
I'm not sure how the caution box would help readers, anyway. If their flight has been canceled they will presumably have been contacted by the airline, and anyway they are unlikely to be checking the United States of America Wikivoyage article for updates on an imminent (probably domestic) flight. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is being mentioned in the news again today. I’ve followed the reports and seen many explanations, from weather to vaccine wildcat strikes, but regardless it needs to be mentioned somewhere. Notably many news sites have been reporting almost 30% cancellations at Southwest and much less for their competitors, so it implies it is not due to weather at locations, but an internal Southwest issue. If this continues to cause chaos at airports, travelers should know about it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Free speech[edit]

I know that free speech is allowed by the constitution, and the US might be the country with the freest speech, but I am still not found of the wording:

"However, the Constitution also guarantees freedom of speech to a greater degree than in other Western democracies"
  1. Do we know no other Western country allows as free speech?
  2. This sounds like Western democracies in general would not allow much free speech.
  3. Why do we need to compare? This is in a section on racism!

LPfi (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Measuring the degree to which one constitution guarantees free speech more than another constitution is very subjective and beyond the ability of a small group of amateur travel guide writers. We should avoid using Wikivoyage as a platform for personal opinions, and should not waste time arguing over stuff like thus. Ground Zero (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the U.S., freedom of speech is absolute, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. You can never be prosecuted no matter how abhorrent the things you say, the only exception being direct threats of violence. So for instance, while you can be prosecuted for hate speech in say, Canada, Australia or the UK, your right to say the most abhorrent things imaginable is constitutionally protected in the U.S. For instance, you are legally guaranteed the right to hold a rally chanting "All Muslims are terrorists!" in the U.S., while that is illegal even in other Western countries. The only thing you cannot do is explicitly call upon the crowd to kill Muslims. The dog2 (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was going to say something similar, but The dog2 expressed it better than I would have. However, the U.S. is not the only non-dictatorship that allows hate speech, so we could look into the phrasing of the passage in question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the current phrasing is fine:
However, the Constitution also guarantees freedom of speech to a greater degree than in most other Western democracies, so it is unfortunately possible to encounter racist comments (both blatant and subtle) in public forums.
If you guys don't like "most," we could change it to "many." Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The dog2 has compared the US to three other Western democracies, not all of them. Also, they did not provide any sources to support their personal opinions. I'm not asking for sources: I'm asking that we not get into a big debate about one contentious sentence that is of marginal relevance to travelling in the USA. Let's stick to being travel writers. Ground Zero (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current (=former) wording is OK. It is not misleading even if the US would happen to have the freest speech. We don't need to say more on this, at least not in this section. –LPfi (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the exception of authoritarian countries, I don’t know why the freedom of speech issue is important to the traveler. Freedom of speech is a trait of multiple countries (and is difficult to define), so I don’t think is relevant to the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or we can just use the changed text to apply it to the relevant section of the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Selfie City, it's relevant in that, unlike in many other countries, racist statements are not prosecutable and are protected speech in the U.S. I don't understand what the problem is with the current phrasing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I know, by the changed text I meant your italicized version changing “most” to “many,” to be clear. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I inferred from LPfi’s comment that the remarks on free speech had been added to the article with no stated connection to race, so I thought they were irrelevant and should be removed. When I read the full text, I understood a connection was being made between the two and proposed using the “changed” texta d adding it to the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. I support "most" but don't care whether it's "most" or "many", so whoever cares more can choose which of those words to use. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry for not giving enough context for my initial post. I reverted a change and got myself reverted. I think there is no problem now, with the "most" reinserted. –LPfi (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism of Russian restaurants?[edit]

I'm sorry to hear that. The dog2, where has that happened, and how do you know what the motivation of the vandals is? My question is about the entire contents of this paragraph. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is terrible news indeed. A Russian restaurant in Vancouver has also received harassing phone calls, even though it is fundraising for Ukrainian relief. But I don't think these news items belong in the USA article of Wikivoyage. This isn't an issue that affects travellers to the USA generally. Wikinews would be a better place for this. Ground Zero (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's an example: [1]. I understand people want to show solidarity with Ukraine, but as I said, let's not conflate ordinary Russian citizens who had no say in this whatsoever with the actions of Putin, so I think we should have something warning about potential discrimination that Russian citizens might face. And it is certainly possible that you might encounter the vandals themselves if you dine in a Russian restaurant. The dog2 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) It is sad, and an example of the all-too-common problem of justified anger being mischanneled into damaging discrimination and hostility. But I agree with Ground Zero that it doesn't belong in this article – the paragraph as written is not travel-oriented, and this problem is not limited to the US. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After reading the Axios article, I think this warning should stay in the U.S. article. It may be an issue in some other countries, too, but it's clearly something travelers who are or may be mistaken for being Russian may want to watch out for. I will make sure to get some takeout from Anyway Cafe, my local Russian restaurant, soon. Fuck these bigoted idiots! Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it is not limited to the US. And Russians abroad are often there exactly because they couldn't stand Putin's politics. Here I haven't heard of violent incidents, but some Ukrainian food has been removed from shops and menus because it was thought to be Russian. Some kind of warning could be warranted, but I don't know whether it makes sense to put that in every western country article; I don't think travellers should boycott Russian restaurants, and the threat to Russians is probably similar to what Westerners could face in connections to some US wars, and many nationalities in some country where there have been hostile relations (which the traveller may not even be aware of). A paragraph in Stay safe? We have something in Talk#Respect. –LPfi (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyplace where individual Americans might face violence, discrimination or hostility would absolutely warrant a warning for travelers who are or might be mistaken for Americans. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely. Just as we should not conflate ordinary Russian citizens with the actions of the Russian government, or ordinary Muslims with the actions of Al-Qaeda, we should not conflate ordinary American citizens with the actions of the U.S. government. The dog2 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For whatever it's worth, I will say that I faced very little hostility as an American when I traveled to France and Malaysia during the U.S. aggression against Iraq. In neither country were people reluctant to accept my statement that I was a member of the leftist opposition who opposed the war and opposed and hated G.W. Bush. Speaking French and Malay was definitely helpful, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As it's not US-specific, I don't think it should be mentioned only here. But anyway I'll try and head to my nearest Russian restaurant (about 20 kilometers from where I live) and may report back. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think most people are sensible and few would resort to violence against strangers, but I also assume that vandals and those looking for somebody to beat up might prefer to choose target based on some pretext. I don't think you need to be afraid as Russian, but if you find yourself in that dark alley where you shouldn't go, you perhaps shouldn't speak Russian, and in some countries you shouldn't wave that US flag. –LPfi (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── People can be mistaken for being Russian too. To the untrained ear, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Czech and Polish all sound similar. But perhaps the warning can be to be wary of speaking Russian or another Slavic languages in the street. I know the Ukrainians are Slavs too, but most Americans won't be able to tell Russian and Ukrainian apart. The dog2 (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's not jump to conclusions. Have Poles, Serbs, Ukrainians, etc. reported being attacked or harassed on U.S. streets? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So far, not that I've heard of. Even with regard to random Russians walking down the street, I've not heard of anything, but given that Russians are mostly white and Christian, you can't really tell a Russian apart from a white American if they're just walking down the street. Should America go to war with China (and unlike with Russia which is only supported by a minority of Americans, war with China has much stronger support with about half the American population in favour going to war with China to help Taiwan secure formal independence), I'd imagine it'd be much more common for regular Chinese people in the street to be targeted for abuse given that they stand out from the white majority. The dog2 (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't have to guess, because unfortunately, as you know, there has been a lot of violence against people who look East Asian in the U.S. in recent years, regardless of their national origin. But I don't think we should be proactively warning people not to speak Russian or other Slavic languages on the streets of, like, New York. There are thousands and thousands of ex-Soviets here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should base warnings on threats that we know are real, not theories that individual editors might have. Ground Zero (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solar eclipse[edit]

I commented out the mention of a solar eclipse, because I really don't think that

  1. many will travel to the US, just to see the solar eclipse
  2. is worth a mention in any country article that has an area larger than a country like Malaysia

I commented it out pending this discussion, as this information is already present in every single damn article where the solar eclipse will be visible, do we really also need to keep it in the country article? I propose we just remove that statement entirely as ultimately, a solar eclipse is NOT one the most interesting things to see in the US. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's interesting to see if you are able to while you're here. I think it should be listed only in an article about astronomical phenomena, unless there are particularly good places to see it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, Grahamsands spammed the solar eclipse across many pages sitewide, including the destinations where it can be seen (and it's also worth noting this discussion). It was the first thing listed in many articles (though didn't check if it was on this article), until Ground Zero cleaned it up across many articles, but I think adding it into a destination covering an area of 300,000 km2 is too broad. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the lack of further response, I've removed it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latino English[edit]

From some videos I have been watching, it seems like there is a something called Latino English that is spoken among Hispanic communities. Apparent, it does vary geographically; Miami Latinos are mainly influenced by Cuban Spanish, New York Latinos by Puerto Rican and Dominica Spanis, and California and Texas Latinos mainly by Mexican Spanish. Does anybody think this is worth a mention? The dog2 (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spanglish is mentioned in the article. No further detail is needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Ikan Kekek. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Electric socket type[edit]

There have been so many complaints over the years that this article is too long, but in at least this respect, it's not long enough: the type of electric socket should be covered in the "Cope" section. If no-one else gets to it, I may look up the description of standard U.S. electric plugs and sockets, because like most Americans, I think of them as just normal, with no need for much thought or description... Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, go ahead. I think the two-pronged version is called Type A, and the three-pronged version is called Type B. The dog2 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw that basic information was already in Electrical systems, so I added that plus the fact that the standard outlets are 120 v and the heavy duty ones are 220 v. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roe v Wade overturned[edit]

I'm sure everyone got the news now, so is there anything that people think we should cover under Stay Safe or Respect? I highly doubt many people will travel to the U.S. specifically to get an abortion, but I imagine there must be lots of protests going on right now regarding this decision. The dog2 (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this needs to be mentioned because it will undoubtedly affect some travelers, not just because of demonstrations, which are unlikely to have a great effect on them, but because in case they need an abortion, they may have to travel somewhere other than a state they're in. State articles will need to be updated as needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what do you think should be mentioned? I'm not sure it would be practical to list all the states where abortions are illegal. The dog2 (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It will be in state articles as appropriate, in the "Cope" sections. In this article, I would support mentioning that in June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 1973 decision that made abortion legal nationwide, so if you end up needing an abortion while you are traveling, you should check the current laws of the state you're visiting or look at Wikivoyage's state articles to understand whether or under what circumstances you can get an abortion in that state. I also think we should update the "Cope" sections of states where abortion is legal. I may start doing that later today if no-one beats me to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that we should mention the above information about the abortion law somewhere within this article, though it should be on emphasis of travel to states, not the legal issues, in the U.S. article because this is the information travelers want to know. If people want to know about the ramifications of the case itself, and protests, etc., there exist a wide range of sources covering that in more detail than we ever could or should do.
Not in the national US article, but somewhere we should probably provide the Commons image showing the legality in abortion in different states. That said, at the current time there is a lot of uncertainty in states where abortion was made illegal a century ago (Wisconsin and Michigan, I believe), and then made legal with Roe. I don't know whether Commons' legal map would represent the on-the-ground situation in those states but as travel for abortion is likely to increase over the coming months, we should probably include a map of the states' laws somewhere. However, the map would need to be a Commons map that is regularly updates as we're likely to see many more laws banning or codifying abortion, followed by lawsuits and court action, in the coming months, as we saw in Louisiana today. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To my knowledge, abortion is still legal nationwide if it can be demonstrated that continuing the pregnancy will put the mother's life in danger, so if true, that could be mentioned. But otherwise, in many states, you are now forced to carry the baby to term even if yours was the result of a rape. The dog2 (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't agree that Wikivoyage should try to track legality of abortion in states. We don't do it for countries. It isn't a regular part of travel. If we could do it well, I wouldn't object to it being included in a separate article linked from the country article but let's face it, we aren't going to do it well.

People who find themselves in need of those services will look somewhere other than Wikivoyage, and they should look somewhere else. Wikivoyage is not going to be reliable and up-to-date on this. It is one thing to provide out-of-date hotel and restaurant information; providing out-of-date abortion information could create more stress for people already dealing with a stressful situation. Ground Zero (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should be doing that for countries, just like we track the legality of homosexuality, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with GZ. If we do this to every single country, then someone's got to make sure the info isn't going to get out-of-date and reliable, but who is going to be that "someone"? The legality of abortion is in my opinion, a bit too important for us to be a reliable source. Hypothetically, if I were in this stressful situation, I would never, ever trust an online travel guide that can be edited by anyone without providing a source. Let's leave this for the encyclopedia and other more important sources rather than a travel guide wiki.
However, if everyone insists, then I would say it should be covered in a travel topic, but an indication of when it was updated must clearly be written, and it should be indef semi-protected. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discovering that you are LGBTQ while travelling does not create the same urgent need for reliable, up-to-date information as discovering that you are pregnant. (Not you, but one, I assume.)
There have been protests in the U.S. about a lot of things in the last six years or longer. I think that a general note in the Stay Safe section about avoiding protests and the possibility of violence is a better idea than trying to keep up to date on which protests are happening now. There is always an eagerness to provide warnings about current events, but little inclination to remove the warnings when things have settled down, resulting in out-of-date and misleading warnings. As violence has occurred as far as I know at only one abortion rights rally since the SCOTUS ruling, I think it is premature to conclude that we need a warning on the national article. Ground Zero (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The protests that I have encountered so far have been peaceful. What I think perhaps could be mentioned is that it's a particularly volatile topic right now due to the SCOTUS decision, so visitors should take extra care not to bring it up when talking to locals. The dog2 (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's fine to bring it up if you want someone's opinion. I don't think violence is very likely at protests. What's much more important is what happens if a traveler needs an abortion. Keeping in mind what just happened to a traveler in Malta (unviable fetus but had to be medically airlifted to Spain for an abortion), at the very least, we need to cover this in a travel topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added a note to Women travellers (although the risk of unwanted pregnancy is very relevant also for their partner and the to-be father). I am a bit confused about the issue now, for travellers. I wrote that if you find that you are pregnant and consider an abortion, you should get home. It isn't possible or practical for all, but I think it is for 99% of travellers who can get an abortion legally at home. Most people would notice the pregnancy and consider abortion early enough that travelling is perfectly safe and the travel is about days or weeks, not an issue of whether there are tickets for that next flight. You don't want to be alone with your travel partners (especially if your partner or best friend isn't among them) in a country where you don't know the healthcare system or finer nuances of the culture when making and carrying out that decision. If I were the best friend of a person in that situation, I'd be at the next flight there, unless they get their return tickets sooner than I'd arrive. –LPfi (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this is about people who cannot get the abortion at home, then it is close to medical tourism. We could have a travel topic on this, but I think other consideration are more important for us to cover than specific legislation in specific jurisdictions. –LPfi (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Part of the point is that if you are pregnant, it may be particularly important for you to have comprehensive medical or traveller's insurance if you are planning to visit a country or part of a country that does not have or has extreme restrictions on legal abortion. What happened to the woman who was visiting Malta was that she had a severe, life-threatening complication to her pregnancy that required an abortion, but in Malta, while the fetus still has a heartbeat, an abortion is illegal. Fortunately, she had traveller's insurance that paid for her to be medically airlifted to Spain when she was too sick to take a normal flight, and she has survived the ordeal. Had she not had insurance, she could have been stuck with an unpayable debt or died. By the way, I understand that they first tried to find someone who could help her in Italy, but while abortion is legal in Italy, there are so many doctors who are conscientious objectors that it can be really hard to find someone to perform even a life-saving abortion there. That's important information for travellers to know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's important, yes. It's like not getting blood transfusion because of JW doctors or legislators (I believe it's them who refuse transfusions themselves). And you wouldn't think you'd be left without life-saving treatment in a country like Italy. How widespread is this madness? –LPfi (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's certainly a real problem there. One European country that used to provide abortions freely where they're now illegal is Poland. Poland has been extremely generous to Ukrainian refugees (as opposed to refugees from Muslim countries or to African students who also fled from Ukraine, but nevertheless). However, Ukrainian women who were raped by Russian soldiers and got pregnant were shocked to discover that they could not get a legal abortion in Poland. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Pregnancy due to rape was one of the situations I thought of. Still, however traumatic the situation, they probably have plenty of time. It is inconvenient, especially if they had time to arrange their lives in Poland, but they can easily travel e.g. to Finland (or Germany or wherever), where they'd be entitled to urgent medical care even as tourists, and I believe on terms of normal social security if they apply for temporary protection (which is granted EU-wide to Ukrainian refugees). Here abortion "on social grounds" requires discussing it (separately with two doctors, I think), but they'd probably have full support in this case, and regardless, I haven't heard that abortion would be denied here, ever. –LPfi (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't assume everyone has the money to pay for such travel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the Ukrainians in Europe, I don't think that's a major problem. Even for those who don't have the funds themselves, I assume it could be arranged (more of a hassle of course, and not everybody wants to talk about their problem, but solvable). For others, of course, it can be a real problem. People working abroad could be a major such group (return ticket to be paid by the not yet received wage). I hope most travellers have the funds to return home by normal flights. –LPfi (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The addition to Tips for women travellers is reasonable, but let's please keep the mention of abortion as minimal and limited as possible. While it's clear a lot of our editors are heavily invested in US politics, we really do need to do better about keeping political reactionary-ism to US politics out of Wikivoyage. A generic warning about the risks of meandering through protests of all types is sufficient and should be a "Captain Obvious" situation anyway and I don't think Roe v Wade itself warrants particular mention in the US article. In the grand scheme of "travel" or "US travel", it's not about travel and only tangentially related. Keeping travelers updated on the American news of the day is not and should not be our goal. Helping refugees or anyone to get abortions is also beyond our scope and is not and should not be one of our goals. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The woman who had to be airlifted from Malta for a life-saving abortion was not a refugee or a protestor but someone intending to make a last trip with her husband before giving birth. I totally agree that coverage of politics should be minimized, but coverage of potentially life-threatening or hugely life-altering conditions that might befall travelers is totally on-topic for this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see what Wikivoyage could have done to help that Italian woman. What happened to her was unplanned, so even if we boldly assume she was an avid reader and we had an article specifically about Pregnant Italians Who Find Out They Have Unviable Fetuses While in Malta and Need Emergency Abortions but Cannot Find Willing Doctors in Italy, it wouldn't have been of any use to her. It's highly likely that even if we went over-the-top and advised that pregnant women should never visit Malta due to their abortion laws that it wouldn't help, because women who are pregnant with the intent of having a child are not likely to be thinking about abortions. It's also a singular instance. Traveler safety is definitely a goal, but even that has to be within reason. Do you actually intend to advise pregnant women avoid Malta in the Malta article based on this one instance? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She was American, and what Wikivoyage can and should do is warn those who are pregnant to seriously consider taking precautions in advance, as I stated above. Let's not be flip about this. There are several categories of traveler who should think about precautions. The clearest example is travelers who are already pregnant and just might have a life-threatening complication that requires an abortion and under some circumstances, a medical airlift. A second category is people who might or plan to have sex while traveling and need to have reliable contraceptives on the front end, a morning-after pill if they fail, and might want to get an abortion if all else fails. In all cases, what we want to do is provide at best useful information but at worst, something for people to think about as part of their travel planning. Access to contraceptives is of course important to men, too, for both pregnancy prevention and disease prevention. Think about why we have articles like Common scams. The scams that are mentioned are not exhaustive, but I and perhaps you know otherwise smart people who unaccountably let their guard down while they were traveling and got robbed before they knew it. Also, mentioning an extreme case is not a call to boycott x, y and z country but is a call to consider the risks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you simply wanting to expand what was already added to Women travellers? I think that would be fine. It's the most directly pertinent article. If you want information elsewhere, then what article(s) are you proposing and what do you want to say in those? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did add a sentence to Women travellers. I think that in addition, brief remarks in the "Cope" sections of articles for countries and states would be appropriate, whether they have to do with the availability of safe abortions, policies toward gays and lesbians, availability of contraceptives, or indeed harsh drug laws, which also get mentioned in such sections. We need to keep things brief and focused squarely on practical issues that could affect travelers, not on politics. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Going into detail about abortion politics is certainly out of scope of a travel guide. That said, I think a brief summary is OK so pregnant women who want to visit can make advance preparations. For instance, they might want to purchase insurance that covers medical evacuation to an area where abortions are legal just in case the pregnancy runs into any life-threatening complications. For the main U.S. article, I think we can just say that abortions are legal nationwide if it can be demonstrated that the woman's life will be in danger from continuing the pregnancy, but in other circumstances, it differs radically by state. The dog2 (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know how clear it is that a woman in, say, Texas, could obtain an abortion in that state without operating abortion clinics if their life were in danger, and note that when politicians get involved, the question of at what point a woman's life is in danger, rather than threatened or whatever, becomes debatable, rather than solely up to doctors. At this point, I think it's best to say that state laws are in a state of flux and that it's best to check on current conditions beforehand. In the meantime, where laws are clear, they should be summarized. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think we should cover abortion availability in this article – like most other medical procedures, it is too specific and relevant to too few short-term travelers. Moreover, there's not much that we can say concretely in this article, as availability varies widely by state. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what to say, briefly, and then each state article should briefly cover the situation there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I still agree with Granger. Abortion availability is outside of our scope. It is a very small and niche number of travelers who will be pregnant and then have a complication where an emergency abortion is required. We don't have any advice for pregnant travelers in country articles that I can see (China, Italy, Netherlands, Japan, Brazil, Mexico), including this one, which brings up Planned Parenthood as a place to secure contraceptives. I think it's best confined to the article for women travelers. Providing abortion information in every country or state/region article seems closer to trying to help people get abortions than trying to protect pregnant travelers with complications. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd argue that this information should be very briefly mentioned in all country articles. It's just coming to some of our minds now because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, but that doesn't make the argument for exclusion of information stronger, and the specific case I brought up happened to an American traveler in Malta. And OK, emergency abortions, while not as rare as you might think, are the exception, but it is not uncommon to have an unintended pregnancy. My feeling is that it is useful to travelers to mention basic information about the availability of medical and dental care in general, contraceptives and abortions, and simply mentioning that is certainly not helping people to get abortions; it's not like we're giving them contact information. Similarly, we should also mention whether LGBT people or unmarried couples are likely to have problems in a given country, whether alcohol and weed are legal or not, and whether drug offenses are punished severely. Again, all of this should be mentioned very briefly, but the idea that pregnant women or women who might get pregnant are some kind of small niche strikes me as unduly male-centric in a somewhat objectionable way (in other words, it doesn't make me irate, but it does bug me). Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking through this thread, there is a clear consensus against informing readers of any article except Tips for women travellers about the status of abortion anywhere. So I ask all of you: What's the justification, then, for mentioning anything about laws on alcohol, smoking or other drugs, or the situation for LGBT travelers? Just what does belong in "Cope" sections, and what's your justification? I think turning the question around is important, and I'll look forward to reading about how pregnant women and women of childbearing years are a niche group and illegal drug users are not, or whatever argument you want to advance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree that we should give basic information about the availability of medical and dental care in general. But in most destination articles, including this one, I don't think it makes sense to go into the availability of specific procedures. This is not to say that women who might get pregnant are a small niche – obviously they aren't. But for any given medical procedure, travellers who unexpectedly need it on a short-term trip before they go back home are generally a small niche. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again: my suggestion is to mention in Malta#Cope, Poland#Cope and such that abortion is illegal. In this article, I would mention only that abortion is illegal in some states as of 2022 and that you should check state articles for details, and I would support briefly covering the legality of abortion in state articles, not here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]